Jews: Quality, not Quantity

Don’t be fooled by Ann Coulter’s lies about her anti-Semitic tweet. Her very own words betray her heart.

Coulter has repeatedly justified her anti-Semitic tweet (“f—ing Jews”) by arguing that she was addressing the quantity, not the quality, of Jews. This is nonsense! The epithet modifies “Jews,” not “many.”

She also claims she was attacking the panderers, not Jews. Poppycock!

Ludicrously, Coulter claims that there was nowhere else to place Effing in that sentence. If that were true – and it isn’t – then write a different sentence. But her assertions are and remain lies.

All Coulter had to do was place Effing in front of “many” (thereby modifying the quantity) instead of after it (making it a statement of quality) – or – to place it before “people” (panderers) instead of before “Jews.”

Quality or Quantity?

Coulter tweeted (emphasis added):

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):

“How f—ing many Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

Coulter’s actual tweet expresses the quality of Jews. To express the quantity of Jews, all Coulter had to do was move her modifier over one word to the left.

Yet, Coulter claims that the only place she could find to put Effing in that sentence was before Jews. Coupling those two words together is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.

Panderers or Object of Pandering?

Coulter still claims she could not express her views any other way in that short space of characters. She further claims she was talking about the panderers, not the object of their pandering. But then, why not write:

“Those f—ing candidates are pandering to Jews, who are very few in U.S.”

Simple. Easy. Anyone with a pulse could come up with that formulation.

Let’s return to Coulter’s original tweet (emphasis added):

“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”

If Coulter had truly meant Effing to condemn the panderers and not the object of the pandering, she should have placed Effing three words to the right, in front of “people.”

Coulter did not tweet (emphasis added):

“How many Jews do these f—ing people think there are in the United States?”

Again, she didn’t.

Why? Because Coulter intended that epithet for Jews.

Not quantity. Not panderers. But Jews.

Coulter’s Choice of Words and Their Placement

Writing is all about word choice and word placement. Coulter chose her words and she placed them exactly where she wanted them.

Why would she do so? Why would she attack Jews?

Because she was exasperated by what seemed to her to be too many references to Israel. Again, she did not attack the alleged pandering of GOP candidates; she attacked the object of their alleged pandering: Jews.

Coulter’s words self-evidently reveal that she believes Jews really do wield power disproportionate to their numbers, prompting the pandering she so despises and, thus, her attack on Jews.

First, Jews; Now, Catholics?

Ann Hart Coulter is a modern-day Know Nothing.

Following her anti-Semitic rant[1] against Jews and Israel,[2] Coulter has now embarked upon a Know Nothing approach to Catholicism. This is especially strange as she attended a private Catholic school until she entered high school. One would think she would know better.

Coulter’s Anti-Catholic Tweets

Among Coulter’s many tweets disparaging the Catholic Church (emphasis added):

Time	Tweet
9:55 a.m.	Equally accurate statement to the Pope’s: The Catholic Church was “largely built by pedophiles.” twitter.com/WSJ/status/646…
10:04 a.m.	I’m an American and this is why our founders (not “immigrants”!) distrusted Catholics & wouldn’t make them citizens. twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…
10:06 a.m.	Catholics were not accepted until they became more AMERICAN Catholic less ROMAN Catholic-Harvard’s Samuel Huntington twitter.com/DavidLimbaugh/…
10:29 a.m.	Yes, 55 Protestants & 1 Catholic. Can we admit immigrants in that wildly diverse proportion? twitter.com/michaelbd/stat…
10:40 a.m.	No, I’m attacking the Pope. So did Martin Luther. So did America’s settlers. So did Dems when it was John Paul II. twitter.com/dmataconis/sta…
11:05 a.m.	THIS Pope’s philosophy of worshiping the poor, blaming the rich leads to Latin American poverty. American Catholicism leads to success.

Coulter’s WASP Nativism

Coulter has a distinctly WASP (White and Protestant)[3] view of America. For years now, Coulter has hated immigrants.[4] Her nativism has been especially pronounced[5] this year. Coulter even hates the idea of Christians serving overseas.[6] Indeed, she insists that all other nations suck.[7]

During the 2012 election cycle, Coulter compared social conservative Rick Santorum to ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy – because of their shared Catholicism. To Coulter, Santorum was “more Catholic than conservative.”

Last year, Coulter condemned Catholics as “moral show-offs” and “fake Christians,” expressing contempt for church leaders and parishioners alike whose theology compels them to adopt political positions with which she disagrees.

Coulter claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics. Yet, Coulter condemns liberal Catholics in America for their liberalism, while the traditional pro-life Roman Catholic doctrines remain extant. Ironically, Coulter has waged war on pro-lifers for defending the unborn while claiming to be totally pro-life herself. Confused? So is Coulter.

Coulter does not make sense. To reiterate, she claims that American Catholics are better than Roman Catholics because they have been assimilated. Yet, many of those Catholics who have been assimilated into American culture have become more secularized and embraced leftwing views on social issues (abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc.) while the foreign Roman Catholics hold the views that Coulter cherishes. Reality is the exact opposite of what Coulter claims it is.

As noted by National Memo, Coulter’s ire at Latin American Catholics may stem from her anti-immigration thesis in Adios, America! They correct Coulter on the historical record:

“Catholics in the New World had easily become Americans following the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, and the acquisition of Florida from Spain in 1819. And Catholics did indeed play a role in the early polity of the U.S. This included one signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Maryland, and two delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Daniel Carroll of Maryland (and cousin of Charles), plus Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania.”

Catholics in the Revolutionary War

Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, Catholics were among the “American settlers” Coulter cherishes. And they fought for America! Several of America’s Founding Fathers were Catholic.

From “Catholics and the Founding”:

“The preeminent Catholic patriot was undoubtedly Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Heir to the fortune of an early Maryland Catholic family, it was said that Carroll risked more (in financial terms) than any other when he became the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.”

“Carroll’s cousin, John, was also an important figure in Revolutionary America. John Carroll had been a Jesuit priest before the suppression of the order by Pope Clement XIV and had continued to minister as one of the colonies’ few priests. Uniquely positioned as an ardent patriot and a Catholic religious leader, he was called upon by the Continental Congress to join Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll on an unsuccessful mission to Canada to try to convince the colonies’ northern neighbor to maintain neutrality during the war with Britain. Carroll would become the first American bishop in 1789.”

“A thousand miles to the west, another Catholic with less economic clout and fewer connections would also play an important part in the military plans of the Americans. Father Pierre Gibault was a missionary of French descent in southwestern Indiana. When the Virginia militia under Colonel George Rogers Clark entered the area, Gibault and others met the American commander and pledged the support of the region to the forces of independence in return for assurances of religious freedom. Against the wishes of the bishop of Quebec, Gibault led the French residents of the Vincennes region in cooperating with the Americans.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[2]               See “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.

[3]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7H.

[4]               See “Coulter’s Soccer Flop – Part Trois” at http://t.co/uy7FDPu79v.

[5]               See “Coulter: All Immigrants Are Bad” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8w.

[6]               See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

[7]               See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)

Ann Coulter’s incendiary “f—ing Jews” tweet was quickly countered by her claim, “I like the Jews.” Really?

As I pointed out last week,[1] Coulter’s tweet was, is, and remains indefensible. Yet, she defends herself. Before analyzing her rebuttal, let’s take a quick look at exactly what her initial tweet said.

Effing Jews – Expletive of Endearment

Coulter tweeted, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” Notice her exquisite courtesy in bleeping out the offensive adjective. Very polite. Who could possibly imagine what that bleeped word is?

The subject is not, as Coulter later claimed, panderers. The subject is Jews – and the modifier is an expletive! (Yet, just hours later, Coulter claimed to “like” “the Jews.”) Coulter’s criticism and wrath was directed at Jews, not GOP candidates. The adjective employed applied to Jews, not politicians.

Regardless of the context of her tweet, even taking in the totality of all of her tweets during the debate, there is no denying the anti-Semitic nature of those two words. In context or out, they are anti-Semitic by the very coupling of Effing with Jews.

Again, as I pointed out last Thursday, who (besides Ann) uses an expletive as an endearment?

Just thinking those two conjoined words is bad enough, but to actually tweet them? And, having tweeted them, to justify using them? Yes, Ann Coulter is an impenitent propagandist.[2]

Coulter and GOP Panderers

As noted in last week’s column,[3] Coulter quickly attempted to rebuff criticisms of her tweets by claiming she was attacking the GOP candidates for pandering. But prior to the fallout, Coulter never tweeted the word “pander.”

Coulter claims: “My tweet was about Republicans and the pandering. It wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Jews. It’s what Republicans are thinking in their little pea brains. I could say the same thing about Evangelicals. Who are you pandering to? A lot of it is to Sheldon Adelson and the Evangelicals…. This kind of suck-uppery is humiliating.”

Wait! Effing Jews isn’t about Jews? Jews was the subject of the tweet and the object of Coulter’s wrath. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

As Coulter has made painfully obvious, in her view, the Jews are to blame for GOP candidates pandering to them. (If that is, in fact, what the candidates were doing.) Coulter has obviously bought into the narrative that she claims other Republicans have embraced.

A column on Jerusalem Post asks why the GOP would “pander” to Jews: “As Coulter well knows, Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama, not once but twice. She is also aware that the vast majority of Iran-deal opponents is Republican. Sheldon Adelson, whom she made a point of mentioning in her Daily Beast interview, is an exception, not the rule.”

David French noted “a small irony about Ann Coulter: Even while she was slamming the GOP for ‘pandering’ on issues like abortion and Israel, she herself was using specific language that panders to the small, race-obsessed far-right crowd that is particularly focused on those same issues.”

French continued: “We defend a culture, not a race. The foundation of that culture is a faith that makes no distinction among races but rather declares, unequivocally, ‘All are one, in Christ Jesus.’ Shunning the slur disempowers the trolls and forces the radical Left to confront the race hatred that fuels its own rage.”

Coulter: “I like the Jews”

Coulter’s defense includes the self-evidently fraudulent assertion, “I like the Jews.”

We know this is a lie for many reasons. First, is the definitive article “the” preceding “Jews.” If someone said “I like the blacks,” would you believe her? If someone claimed to like “the Hispanics” or “the Asians,” what veracity would you give their claim? (Remember, Coulter is a linguist and a wordsmith who knows how to effectively and accurately use the English language.)

Second, speaking of “the Jews,” Coulter is speaking of all Jews. But we already know from 35 years of commentary, that Coulter “hates,” “despises,” and “loathes” (her words) liberals and feminists, many of whom are Jews. Indeed, a majority of Jews in America vote Democrat. Does Coulter really “like” those “Jews?” Hardly. Coulter has often attacked liberal Jews (as a group or individually).

Binyamin Jolkovsky, the founder of Jewish World Review, wonders: “She could have been drunk, she could have been high, I don’t know, I have to give her the benefit of the doubt … but I don’t have to delude myself. Pandering to Jewish money is about as anti-Semitic a stereotype as you could put forth. Her ‘eff-ing Jews’ comment is not identifying Israel – it’s identifying Jews, plural, and all Jews. There is no excuse for that. You can’t just wiggle out of something that vile and hateful.”

Tom Sykes observes that Coulter’s “whole argument echoes a historic libel against Jews that they hold secret influence.”

Third, claiming to either like or dislike an entire race of people is, itself, a racist claim. It is called stereotyping. Does anyone like all people of a given racial or ethnic group? Or of a particular religion? Or of a particular political persuasion?

Wasn’t it Coulter who said, “All nations suck compared to America?”[4] Isn’t Israel a nation?

Coulter’s Twitter Rebuttal

On September 17^th, Coulter tweeted a ludicrous assertion: “No: It’s pro-Semitic. Where is all the GOP pandering on Israel getting us? US becoming Mexico very bad for Israel. twitter.com/ANewSarah/stat…”

Coulter has just redefined anti-Semitism as pro-Semitic!

Many of Coulter’s tweets reiterated her many false claims during her book tour that the only issue that matters is immigration. She uses that narrative to justify her attacks on pro-lifers,[5] on Reagan lovers,[6] and, now, on defenders of Israel.[7]

Coulter’s joke – “Boy were they wrong @ Jewish influence! I complained about pandering on Israel (Reagan & abortion) & haven’t heard a thing about it!” – merely reinforces her contention that Jews have too much power, the root of her anti-Semitic rant.

Undermining her own arguments, Coulter retweeted from her friend, Ben Shapiro: “RT @benshapiro: This I know of @anncoulter: she is far more a friend to Jews and Israel than Jewish Obama voters now jumping on her.”

Does Coulter really “like” those Obama-voting Jews? Remember, Coulter called Jews, not Israel, “f—ing!” She obviously has a high regard for Israel’s policies, but not necessarily her people (or Jewish people outside Israel).

Finally, “John Derbyshire @DissidentRight reviews indexed references to Israel in my smash bestseller “Adios, America!” – bit.ly/1V13f9x.”

Derbyshire actually promotes the anti-Semitic stereotype of a disproportionately powerful Jewish lobby –and Coulter is using that as one of her defenses!

According to the Zionist Organization of America, “Ann Coulter made appalling, anti-Jewish remarks which evoked the classic, anti-Semitic trope about Jewish manipulation of America for the purposes of supporting Israel at America’s expense.”

As for Derbyshire’s quotes from Coulter’s “smash bestseller” – they pertain to a love of Israel’s policies, not her people. In Adios, America! Coulter is not defending Jews, she is defending Israel. Moreover, she is defending Israel in the areas that pertain to her agenda for America: immigration and border security.

Coulter’s Video Rebuttal

Coulter quickly entered firestorm mode, posting a professionally produced video defense[8] of her tweets. In her condescending self-defense video, Coulter attacked her critics while lying about her tweets and the context of those tweets.

Coulter claimed, ““It’s been a long theme of mine – attacking Republicans[9] for all, you know, trying to prove – I don’t know what they’re trying to prove – by constantly praising Reagan and denouncing abortion.”[10]

Yes, Coulter asserts that her criticism of Jews is really criticism of the GOP.

But even in defending herself, Coulter convicts herself. She added, “I hadn’t even mentioned their, their incessant sucking up to Israel in my column.” So, in Coulter’s view, the GOP is always, incessantly “sucking up to Israel.” Is Coulter suggesting that Israel donates to GOP campaign coffers? Or is she arguing that American Jews – most of whom vote Democrat – will vote for the GOP?

Coulter continued, “Then I watched the debate …” and hated those few references to Israel. Moreover – in her professionally-produced video rebuttal – Coulter again lied about the last question of the GOP debate. She claimed it had to do with what America would look like. No! The object of the question was the “world,” not “America.” In her tweets and interviews, she continually misstates that crucial question.

Regarding her GOP debate questions, Coulter asserts: “That was the anti-pandering section of my tweeting debate night.” Except, her criticism was of Israel, not pandering, and her anti-Semitic tweet called Jews, not GOP panderers, “f—ing.”

Coulter’s logic utterly falls apart in the next section. She argues:

“They chopped up the tweet, sent it out, the apotheosis of which was the Daily Beast post: ‘Ann Coulter Shouts Effing Jew.’ O, come on now. I know how to use Effing in a sentence.”

Coulter then admits that using “Effing Jew” on its own is anti-Semitic, but “Saying how many Effing anything, that’s a comment on quantity. It’s not saying ‘Effing Jews,’ it’s saying ‘how many.’ Quantity, not quality.”

Balderdash! The question queried quantity, but the qualifier on the noun (Jews) denoted quality (f—ing).

Coulter continued: “Because it was chopped up, [some] may have thought that I said something unkind and, I wouldn’t want [dramatic pause] them to think that.”

First, it was not “chopped up.” Second, everyone knows what her tweet meant. It is painfully obvious to all. Third, who is “them?” Why the significant pause before saying the word “them?” Who is “them?” Jews?

Coulter concluded: “I’m pro-Israel. So is everyone in the room. So is everyone on the stage. Can you give it a rest?”

Throughout her various iterations defending her indefensible tweet, Coulter has continually conflated “Jews” with “Israel.” They are not identical.

Anyone with a pulse knows, Jews are a people (racially, ethnically, religiously) and Israel is a nation. Coulter has certainly proven her exuberance for Israel’s policies (fence, immigration, anti-terrorism) and her current leader (Netanyahu). But when has she evinced support for the Jewish people? In fact, Coulter has treated Jews in a derogatory fashion.[11]

Hollywood Reporter Interview

In an astonishing interview with Hollywood Reporter, Coulter made several outrageous (and demonstrably untrue) assertions.

“It’s totally fake outrage from frauds who want to continue the dump of third-worlders on the country, including Muslim Jihadists, and voted for the guy who just gave a nuke to Iran.”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

Coulter claims her critics are “mostly Israel-hating liberals and pro-mass-immigration Republicans. Both of whom don’t want anyone to notice how immigration is changing the country, putting Americans – and Israel – at risk.”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

“The hypocrites who are mad at me are the ones who support anti-Israel college professors, who refuse to condemn Islamic barbarism, who supported the overthrow of Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, who spread the deadly libel that Jews in America are only successful because of ‘white privilege.’”

Except, of course, much of the criticism arises from conservatives, including conservative Jews.

“There has been a huge spike in anti-Semitism across Europe due to the massive influx of Muslim immigrants. The same people in a faux uproar about my tweets are also leading the charge to import Muslims into the U.S.A. Half a million girls in the U.S. are now at risk for female genital mutilation. I doubt their dads are voting for pro-Israel politics. I’m the one who just wrote a book about these problems.”

How does Coulter know that it is the same people? Because they oppose Ann?

Conservative Coulter Critics

Sarah Rumpf lamented that “Ann Coulter Broke My Heart,” arguing that Coulter’s “raison d’être is no longer the bold articulation of conservative principles but rather an ugly and small-minded vision for America.” Rumpf concluded, “Coulter is too smart not to realize the danger she is courting. Her comments, and continued justification of them, are a betrayal of the principles of not just conservatism, but America.”

David French, at National Review, objected to Coulter’s “Snide comments about GOP obsessions with abortion, insufficient attention to immigration … and obsession with Israel.” French charged Coulter with “pandering – pandering to a very small, very angry crowd that’s far more white nationalist than it is recognizably conservative.”

French continued, “[Her tweets] do not reflect conservative ideals, they do not advance conservative ideals, nor will they even advance the civilizational goals she seems to care so much about. Like it or not, if one wants to actually secure the border and impose a sensible immigration policy, extending a middle finger to conservative America – while attention-getting – is ultimately unpersuasive.”

Joseph Farah, at World Net Daily noted, “The use of the F-bomb really does put her on shaky ground in denying her comment was not anti-Semitic. This is, after all, a woman who claims to be a Christian – one who presumably worships a Jewish Messiah called Jesus. As a Christian Arab-American, I can tell you stringing together that epithet with the word ‘Jews’ puts her on very shaky grounds in denying anti-Semitism.”

Farah continued, “At the very least, one has to wonder if she ever had a nasty, twisted, repugnant thought that went unexpressed.”

Farah continued, “Is Coulter aware that of all the religion-based attacks on people in the U.S., some 60 percent are directed at Jews? Is she unaware of the rising anti-Semitism on American college campuses and elsewhere in the country? Is she blithely ignorant of the fact that the one and only Jewish state in the world is surrounded by enemies who seek its destruction?”

Jack Engelhard, a conservative Jewish author, grieved over Coulter’s words to the point of throwing away all of her books. Her former fan wrote “she happens to be a fine, witty writer, a strong Conservative – a gal after my own heart. She was near the top of my list of brainy blonde Conservative bombshells, and politically, we work the same beat.”

But Coulter’s tweet was “like a kick in the gut – from a valued and trusted friend.” Engelhard then asked, “If that is what she is thinking – what about the rest of them who are my trusted political allies?” After mourning his loss, he added, “It’s bad enough that I am at odds with my Leftist acquaintances, but now I feel estranged from the Right. Are we really on the same side?”

“What part of shared Judeo/Christian heritage doesn’t she understand? Apparently the Judeo part.”

Binyamin Jolkovsky observed: “This is about a girl who threw a tantrum … on Twitter. Having an apology that’s acceptable, especially during this time of the year for the Jewish calendar, would be the right thing to do – it would be the Jewish thing to do. This is crazy.”

An apology would also be the Christian thing to do. That’s why she won’t do it.

Supporting Israel

Israel is America’s only loyal ally in the Middle East. Israel is the only nation in the world that truly understands the nature of the Islamist threat, having experienced an existential threat since her founding. Israel and the Israeli people share in the Judeo-Christian roots of the American people.[12]

In an Open Letter to Ann, Dr. Michael Brown wrote:

“Is it that hard to connect the dots between Israel, Iran, and American security, especially when you consider the devastating worldwide effects of a completely destabilized Middle East? And when Iranians chant in the streets, ‘Death to Israel! Death to America!’ it’s not that hard to realize that we’re connected in more ways than one.”

“And, by the way, in case you forgot, the Savior of the world is a Jewish Rabbi.”

Avi Davis observed: “Every one of these candidates has been on record for years expressing unconditional support for the State of Israel and its security needs – and it is for one glaringly simple reason: they believe Israel’s security vouchsafes the United States’ security.”

Davis continued, “Making that connection may not be so patently obvious given the geographical distance between the two countries. But it is abundantly clear to anyone who has heard jihadist rantings in mosques from Oslo to Riyadh – the two countries are regarded as the hydra headed monster whose joint destruction is essential to paving the way for the re-emergence of the Caliphate.”

As reported by Hollywood Reporter, Rick Santorum also took Coulter to task for her remarks, saying, “How many Bible-believing Christians does she think are in this country, who understand the significance of the heritage of the Jewish people in the Holy Land?”

Santorum added, “I think everybody, every conservative has a right to look at that and say that this is someone who clearly doesn’t understand the significance of [the relationship between Israel and the U.S.].”

Seemingly, Coulter makes common cause with the enemies of Israel and America.

Coulter’s Motivations

Tom Sykes echoes what I have been saying for years: “Fearful of being forgotten, Coulter has reacted by becoming ever more offensive.”

Per Joseph Farah, “It’s sad to see Coulter degenerate into a slur machine, one who seems so desperate for fame at any cost that she will say anything and possibly do anything to maintain a career as, frankly, a thuggish commentator.”

Rick Santorum argues that Coulter’s rhetoric is reflective of her desires for self-promotion: “some people in the Republican Party who are in the pundit class, who are there to be controversial, and to try to make money, and sell their books. And that’s just fine – they can go sell their books.”

Dr. Brown wrote to Coulter: “You’re obviously no stranger to controversy. To the contrary, you seem to thrive on controversy. In fact, you seem to enjoy provoking it.”

My dear Jewish and Christian friends, let me commiserate with you. Betrayal hurts. But Coulter has never been a trustworthy person.[13] For at least twenty years now, Coulter has betrayed individuals, groups, and causes. Claiming to be a pro-life[14] Christian,[15] she has notably attacked both groups – all to serve her own agenda.

Ann Coulter is her own North Star.[16] Or, to put it another way, Ann Coulter ‘s North Star is Ann Coulter.

Perhaps, at one time, Coulter was guided to some degree by the values of Mother and Father, but no longer. Coulter has become a law unto herself. Her indomitable will seeks to bend the will of others to her own.[17] But she is not a force of nature because nature bends to the will of God.

Time will tell if this particular controversy (again, of Coulter’s own making) will be her Waterloo or her Road to Damascus experience.

Prayer for Ann

Karen Wolfers Rapaport has a gracious response to Coulter’s series of anti-Semitic remarks. Karen began: “Before I continue I would like to be clear that I believe most Christians and non-Jews do not agree with Ann’s remark. I do not see her as a spokeswoman or an ambassador for her religion.”

Rapaport later noted the introspective, soul-searching nature of this season of the Jewish calendar, and she expressed gratitude to Coulter:

“Thank you for being a shofar of sorts, reminding this Jew or any Jew or non-Jew who wishes to participate in a time worn, magical practice, that this is the time for us to do teshuvah; to repent and take stock in our personal character inventory. And in the spirit of forgiveness that marks this time, I solemnly, and with all my heart, forgive you for your insensitivity and ignorance on the subject of perfection.”

Please join me in prayer for Ann:

Lord, cast down Ann Coulter’s haughtiness, her pride and arrogance, her sense of superiority and sense of entitlement. Cast them down to the earth. Cast them down to depths of hell itself.

Then, Lord, lift her up to You. Open her eyes to Your Truth and open her heart to Your love. Grant her a spirit of repentance and forgiveness, a spirit of humility and grace.

Amen.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[2]               See “Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4j.

[3]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[4]               See “Ann Coulter Auditions for U.N. Ambassador” at http://t.co/R7IDzwnUJ8.

[5]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

[6]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[7]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[8]               “Ann Coulter Defends Her Controversial tweet,’ producer Graham Flanagan, Business Insider, 9/18/15.

[9]               See “Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3p.

[10]             See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[11]             See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[12]             See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[13]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[14]               See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[15]              See “Fake Christians” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5T.

[16]              See Vanity: Ann Couler’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[17]               See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots

Ann Coulter has come under fire for what have been described as “controversial” (i.e., anti-Semitic) tweets. Given Coulter’s long history of anti-Jewish sentiment, why are conservatives giving her the benefit of the doubt?

Before perusing the historical record, let’s examine Coulter’s most-recent tweets.

Coulter’s Tweets on Israel

Coulter remains single-mindedly obsessed with immigration (and selling herself and her book[1]), so much so that every other cause means nothing to Coulter, who has viciously attacked pro-lifers[2] and Reaganites.[3] Now, Coulter has gone after Jews and Israel. Anything or anyone posing a threat to Coulter’s agenda or her preferred nominee is fodder.

As for her tweets (emphasis added) …

Time	Tweet
8:46 pm	Huckabee admirably passionate on Israel. If only he cared as much about the survival of the U.S.
8:51 pm	GOP definitely wants to protect Israel! How are they going to do it when immigration turns US into CA and no GOP can be elected president?
9:00 pm	So glad I’m watching debate! Learned GOP is: anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan. I wonder if there’s any disagreement on immigration…
11:00 pm	Good grief! Huckabee is running for PM of Israel.
11:05 pm	Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: “What will AMERICA look like after you are president.” [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
11:05 pm	How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States? [NOTE: Coulter courteously bleeped out expletive so as not to offend. Answer: Almost 7 million.]
11:06 pm	Maybe it’s to suck up to the Evangelicals.
11:14 pm	Christie also talks @ Israel in response to the question: What will AMERICA look like after you are president? [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
11:18 pm	How to get applause from GOP donors: 1) Pledge to start a war 2) Talk about job creators 3) Denounce abortion 4) Cite Reagan 5) Cite Israel.

In Coulter’s lopsided logic, affirmation of America’s commitment to Israel should be presumed but not expressed.

Coulter must know that there are many reasons for candidates to pledge support to one of America’s staunchest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East. Geopolitically, candidates employ “Israel” as a symbol of their worldviews and global vision: Judeo-Christian camaraderie and a united defense against terrorist, tyrannical, and rogue regimes. One’s stance on Israel presages one’s foreign-policy perspective.

If we’re not standing with Israel, we’re standing with Iran.

Notice that Coulter impugns the motives of all those who are “anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-Reagan.” She contends – as she has throughout her book tour – that they are “pandering” to constituencies (offering no evidence) and that they are cowards for not being single-mindedly focused on her preeminent issue: immigration.

The ease with which Coulter enters into scorched-earth polemics is astonishing.

Coulter Defends Tweets on Israel

Coulter’s self-defense began on the Kelly File, with her close friend, Megyn Kelly, lending support. Asked by Kelly, “Do you want to take that back?” Coulter said, “No” and claimed her tweet was part of a larger narrative condemning the alleged political “pandering” of GOP candidates who seek to check off “virtue boxes.”[4] Coulter again misquoted the debate question about how America would be different when the question was about how the world would be different. Kelly then quickly switched topics.

Coulter’s post-Fox interview tweets build upon her creative justification for her earlier tweets (emphasis added):

Time	Tweet
1:15 am	U weren’t following tweets. About pandering on RR Israel prolife. Last Q was @ AMERICA & 4 Reps talk @ Israel AGAIN! twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta… [NOTE: The actual question was “world” not “America.”]
1:16 am	All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC. twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
1:17 am	There aren’t even that many Evangelicals to pander to (probably the intended Israel pander-recipients). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
1:28 am	I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night. twitter.com/Jimbobbarley/s…
1:32 am	It’s not about Jewish people; it’s about Republican panderers. twitter.com/lilenchiladas/…
2:00 am	It has to be read w/ prior tweet. Only 140 characters so sometimes they continue. Not @ Jews; about GOP pandering. twitter.com/RightForLife/s…
4:24 am	@JoelCRosenberg Joel! I am a huge Israel fan! See my current book. I was attacking GOP for pandering on Israel (AND Reagan AND abortion).

Anyone who is “a huge Israel fan” could not marry the words “f—ing” and “Jews.” Moreover, if it was about pandering, why an expletive for Jews instead of the pandering politicians?

Who uses expletives to express love for a loved one? Yet, Coulter tweeted, “I like the Jews.” Do you believe her?

In that very same tweet, Coulter continued, “I like fetuses.” Since when? Throughout her book tour,[5] Coulter has vilified pro-life Republicans[6] for pursuing a pro-life agenda.[7] For nearly twenty years, Coulter has subordinated pro-life concerns for her own personal or political agendas.

Don’t listen to who or what Ann Coulter claims to be. Pay attention to what she actually does. Her claims[8] and promises are worthless.[9]

Coulter’s Jewish Roots

Throughout her career, Coulter has expressed antipathy toward Jews, from writing about “oily Jews” to wanting them to be “perfected.” These are not gaffes. They reflect her heart.

Coulter has a long history of anti-Semitism, stretching back to at least the early 1990s. In his first anticonservative book, David Brock “outed” Coulter as an anti-Semite, stating, “That she wanted to leave her New York law firm ‘to get away from all these Jews’ was one of her gentler remarks.”[10]

Consider a 2003 column by Coulter (emphasis added):

“In addition to having a number of family deaths among them, the Democrats’ other big idea – too nuanced for a bumper sticker – is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There’s Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised. Even Hillary Clinton claimed to have unearthed some evidence that she was a Jew – along with the long lost evidence that she was a Yankees fan. And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering.”[11]

Pandering to Jews?[12]

Only Coulter (or an MSNBC host) could write of “oily Jews”[13] and get away with it.

In an equally astonishing entry on her own personal website, captioned “Who said Jews are smart?” Coulter wrote: “NYT Letter of the Day!: ‘Astroturf’ refers to protesters who disagree with me and therefore are not rational.”[14]

Let’s not forget Coulter’s infamous dialogue with Donnie Deutsch about “perfecting” Jews. To save herself from repercussions for her faux paus, Coulter claimed to be the victim and besmirched Deutsch with a wholly fabricated claim which fellow conservatives and fellow Christians bought into as if it were holy writ.[15]

Regarding her “f—ing Jews” tweet, the Anti-Defamation League immediately condemned her remarks, noting:

“While most of America has rightly tuned out Ann Coulter’s hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric, her irresponsible tweets during the Republican presidential candidate’s debate are truly a new low and must be called out.” “Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and anti-Semitic.  Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country.” “All decent Americans should reject Ms. Coulter’s rhetoric as simply beyond the pale.”

Coulter has often said that she sets out to deliberately offend people,[16] and offend she does. Coulter has no filters. Also bear in mind that Coulter is explicitly seeking the restoration of a WASP culture,[17] one predominated by Western European (i.e., British) peoples. Jews and Israelis need not apply.

Update: As usual, Coulter claims her innocence. She insists she “likes” Jews. Does she consider “f—ing Jews” a compliment? An expression (epithet) of love? How can she defend her choice of words and how could she even imagine marrying those words to begin with? Did she greet her father, “F—ing Father?” How does she speak to her lovers?

Coulter told the Daily Beast: “I’m accusing Republicans of thinking the Jews have so much power. They’re the ones who are comedically acting out this play where Jews control everything.” But, wait! Coulter is the one perpetuating this stereotype that no Republicans have voiced. This is Coulter’s explanation for expressing anti-Semitic thoughts – that other people (who have stated those thoughts) are thinking it.

Coulter interjected, “This episode is not going a long way to disprove that [Jews have too much power in Washington.]” Yes, Coulter laments that Jews are so powerful that they are behind the backlash against her anti-Semitic remarks.

Coulter continued: “My point was this whole culture of virtue-signaling where debates are about nothing. Look, Republicans all agree 100 percent that we are pro-Israel, pro-Life, pro-gun. So why do we spend so much time on these issues? It’s just pandering, so who are they pandering to?”

Except, as noted above, Israel is a proxy for a candidate’s entire foreign policy perspective. Moreover, at this moment in history, with Israel (and Jews) under attack throughout the world, and with Obama’s complete surrender to Iran – who wants to destroy both Israel and America – voicing support for Israel is a good, moral, and rational thing to do.

Moreover, Coulter is a consummate wordsmith. She knows language and is proud of her expertise. The adjective “f—ing” modifies the noun “Jews” – not panderers. Indeed, she only tweeted about “pandering” after fallout from her earlier tweets.

Coulter defended her choice of words – “f—ing Jews” – saying, “I don’t think it was my language. I think it was ripped out of context and lied about.” Contrary to Coulter’s assertions, her words are clear and precise – and they reveal her heart.

See also “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Bio Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-6p.

[2]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

[3]               See “Adios, Ann: Only Mitt for Me” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-70.

[4]               Ann Coulter, Kelly File, FNC, 9/17/15.

[5]               See “Coulter Disses Pro-Lifers – Again!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8J.

[6]               See “Coulter’s Assault on Pro-Life Movement Continues” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9a.

[7]               See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.

[8]               See “Ann Coulter’s Crazy Funhouse Mirror” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8n.

[9]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[10]             David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Crown Forum, 2002, pg. 182.

[11]             Ann Coulter, “Party of Ideas,” 11/20/03.

[12]             See Chapter 10: “Equality: Self-Evident Truths,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[13]             Ann Coulter, “Inmates ‘Have A Plan’ To Run The Asylum,” 10/20/04.

[14]             Ann Coulter entry, http://www.anncoulter.com, 8/25/09, 2:17 p.m. (emphasis in the original).

[15]             See Chapter 6: “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[16]             See “Coulter, Simply Offensive” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-5i.

[17]             See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7H.

Coulter Banned For Trump? Ridiculous!

Playing the victim yet again,[1] Coulter recently claimed, “Try to find me on TV. I’m what’s known as a Trump supporter. Banned.”

Coulter banned for supporting Trump? Is Coulter’s claim true? Will you believe your own eyes or believe Coulter’s lies?

Another LOL Moment

Trump supporters are all over the airwaves. Trump is all over the airwaves. In fact, Trump has already received over $2 billion of free publicity this election cycle.

What about Fox News, Coulter’s former home base (she has appeared on that network at least 450 times)?

Fox News has given Trump tons of favorable coverage and bent-over-backwards to defend him. In fact, Fox just aired a one-hour, prime-time special for Trump last night (On the Record) and will air another one-hour, prime-time special with Trump on Hannity tonight, immediately preceding the crucial Wisconsin primary to be held tomorrow.

So, why hasn’t Coulter appeared on Fox News since September 17, 2015? Is it, as she claims, because she is a Trump supporter? Obviously not.

Asked in January if she had been banned by Fox News, Coulter insisted, “No, I’m boycotting them! I’ve joined the Trump boycott!”[2]

What Trump boycott? As of January 26, 2016, Donald Trump had already appeared on Fox News and Fox Business News 132 times[3] – far more than any other candidate. That number has undoubtedly skyrocketed since then. (See also Steve Deace’s analysis at “Trump’s Cancer Spreads to Fox News.”)

The Real Reason for Coulter’s “Ban”

If Coulter has been banned from Fox News (the only network she really cares about), it is not because she is Trump’s biggest supporter and consigliere.[4] Rather, Coulter’s own behavior and obnoxious views have precipitated a sharp decline in the attention which would normally be lavished upon her.

The tipping point occurred in mid-September when she first attacked Jews, then Catholics.

Coulter’s infamous rant against Jews[5] cost her both speaking engagements and television appearances.[6] She had been slated as a presenter for both Media Research Center’s Dishonors Awards and David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. She was discretely disinvited from both of those prestigious events.

Coulter’s phony excuses[7] failed to convince critics and fans alike. On the heels of her anti-Semitic tirade, Coulter went on an anti-Catholic rant, the first of several to come. Coulter repeatedly attacks Catholics[8] for being Catholic. She just won’t stop.

Playing the victim, Coulter is nevertheless the victimizer.[9] Vanity hinders her repentance,[10] something she has always been loath to do. Until she does, she should be shunned. In the meantime, she is desperately in need of your prayers.[11]

Update: “A new report confirms that five television networks cut a deal with Donald Trump that has effectively turned their coverage over to the Republican frontrunner and turned the networks into Trump propaganda arms.”

As of this writing (4/13/16), “Trump has appeared on Hannity an astonishing 41 times since he announced his campaign last June, often for the entire hour.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “I Am Victim, Hear Me Whine,” The Beauty of Conservatism, 2011, is available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/beauty.pdf.

[2]               Ann Coulter, Eric Metaxas Show, Salem Media Group, 1/12/16.

[3]               Sean Hannity, Hannity, FNC, 1/26/16.

[4]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[5]               See “Ann Coulter’s Jewish Roots” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a1.

[6]               See “Effing Jews and Ann Coulter’s Waterloo (or Damascus Road?)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-a9.

[7]               See “Jews: Quality, not Quantity” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-al.

[8]               See “First, Jews; Now, Catholics?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-ah.

[9]               See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[10]             See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[11]             See “An Open Letter to Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cK.

Ann Coulter’s Flights of Fantasy

Given her frequent flights of fantasy, one wonders why anyone listens to Ann Coulter.

Recently, Coulter insisted that she could arrange a détente which would yield her Dream Ticket: Trump-Romney.[1] Simply delusional. Since then, Coulter has been spiraling downward.[2]

Coulter has redefined terms, such as “real American,” traitor,” and “patriot,” spoken of vast conspiracies, and displayed paranoia.

Employing a variety of Orwellian techniques, Coulter has become a propagandist who is no longer able to discern fact from fantasy.

Real Americans!

 Yesterday, Stephen Nemo made some absurd claims. His introductory paragraph asserted: “Ann Coulter is hated by Democrats, but she’s also a pariah among Republicans. Why? She still believes in conservatism and the rule of law.”

Nemo has drunk the Coulter-aid.

In truth, Coulter abandoned Conservatism[3] and Christianity[4] many years ago. As for the rule of law, why is she constantly lying about it? Coulter continues to lie about Supreme Court[5] cases[6] in order to influence national politics.

The person Coulter said she blindly worships as her Savior,[7] The Donald, is not a conservative![8] Moreover, Trump cares about what is best for Trump,[9] not for America.

As evidence for his claim of Coulter’s fidelity to conservatism and the rule of law, Nemo quoted a recent Coulter column: “Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless [television] viewers that Trump is not a ‘real Republican.’”

Nemo omitted these words from her essay: “I certainly hope he’s not a ‘real Republican.’” Nemo did, however, continue with her next words: “I know he’s a real American. Those used to be the same thing.”

In other words, “real Republicans” are no longer “real Americans.”

For decades, Coulter has defined who “real Americans” are per her own malleable standards. As I noted last September,[10] Coulter was wrong then and she is wrong now!

Coulter defines not only who Americans are but she also pinpoints where the traitors can be found.

Treason Without Reason

Displaying both hyperbole and paranoia on steroids, Coulter tweeted (emphasis added): “Fox News & Cruz are American traitors, in league with the liberal establishment. Silent majority must face fire from a unified oligarchy.”[11]

American Thinker provided the Cruz quote which prompted “Coulter foaming at the mouth.” After condemning the violence at Trump’s rally in Chicago, Cruz said, “when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

American Thinker correctly observed: “Never mind that the ‘unified oligarchy’ Coulter decries is a unified oligarchy elected by the American people; the main point is that every word, every syllable, every letter of the above quote is absolutely and verifiably true.” (He then provided a surfeit of details.)

Upon hearing of Rubio’s epic defeat in his home state of Florida, Coulter again furthered her treason motif, tweeting (emphasis added), “Media’s favorite line tonight: Rubio lost because he was too optimistic. Yeah, the whole treason thing had nothing to do with it.”[12]

In 2003, Coulter declared as traitors everyone who disagreed with even just one item of the GOP platform. To her, all Democrats and liberals were guilty of treason. Now, Coulter calls Republicans, conservatives, and Christians[13] “traitors” for disagreeing with her on one single issue: immigration.

Back then, the entirety of the Left were treasonous in Coulter’s eyes. Now, a huge swath on the Right have joined their ranks. Oh, and, by the way, Coulter’s definition of “treason” is not a legal one, but an elastic one dependent upon her own personal whim. Moreover, Coulter misuses the term for its effect as emotional vernacular to bypass reason and facts.

Propaganda With Paranoia

A gifted linguist, Coulter is, indeed, adept at propaganda. She knows how to manipulate language to manipulate people. Orwell’s Newspeak and doublethink could have been designed just for her.[14]

Since the release of her latest book, Coulter’s commentary has been replete with errors[15] and outright fabrications. Who knew that the Great Depression “was the most prosperous period in American history?”[16]

One particular tweet required a great deal of chutzpah to publish (as well as a certain disdain for her readership). Gloating over Trump’s Florida victory, Coulter tweeted (emphasis added), “To beat Rubio, Trump had to beat: Fox, entire MSM, National Review, Salem Radio, every major GOP donor…MAYBE VOTERS WANT LESS IMMIGRATION!”[17]

The entire tweet in all of its particulars is incorrect. Coulter consistently claims a conspiracy among political and media elites to foil Trump’s candidacy. According to Coulter, Fox News is part of that grand conspiracy.

Fox News? Matt Walsh recently exposed her lies on this, writing, “All the other dull, blathering Trump sycophants on Fox News, like Andrea Tantaros and Eric Bolling and Kimberly Guilfoyle and other various Trump shills who’ve now taken to declaring that ‘principles don’t matter.’ The Fox morning show team hands airtime to Trump whenever he demands it, and they sit in admiration listening to him blabber on like infatuated school boys pretending to be interested in what the pretty girl in class is saying. But they’re of course not as bad as Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC, who was recently caught on camera taking instructions from Trump about what questions he can ask.”

Walsh continued: “Trump and his groupies complain that Fox is ‘unfair’ to him, but those of us who haven’t had our brains cooked by Trump fever recognize that, with the exceptions of Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, Greg Gutfeld and a few others, the entire network slobbers over him like a cheerleader fainting when the varsity quarterback asks her to the prom.”

As of January 26, 2016, Donald Trump had already appeared on Fox News and Fox Business News 132 times[18] – far more than any other candidate. That number has undoubtedly skyrocketed since then.

Entire MSM? The mainstream media is hardly a monolith and it has provided more coverage of Trump than any other candidate in any other election in history. It covers Trump rallies and speeches, often without commentary, while overlooking other candidates. Trump gets air time whenever he wants it. Also, Trump has bullied many media outlets into acquiescence.

The Media Research Center frequently notes the disparate coverage afforded Trump at the expense of his opponents, even in GOP debates. Most recently, Breitbart, known as Trump’s personal Pravda, has come under fire for covering up Trump scandals and betraying its reporters and readers.

The Sun Times reported that the media “gave Trump $400 million worth of free coverage in just one month’s time.” In total, Trump has received about $2 billion in free air time.

Back in 1999, Coulter was incensed at any publicity that Sen. John McCain received during his 2000 election campaign. Coulter asked of McCain, “Courageous, independent, or bought?” and accused him of “shilling [for] the newspaper industry in return for favors worth millions of dollars in campaign donations.”[19]

Is Trump shilling now?

National Review? National Review is one of the few media outlets actually opposed to Trump, not out of treasonous hatred for America but, rather, with fervor for journalistic integrity, the Constitution, liberty, conservatism, and the rule of law. (Yes, conservatism and the rule of law, Mr. Nemo.)

While the “entire MSM” has failed to focus on Trump’s moral and business failings, National Review put together “a comprehensive roundup of the man’s disastrous [business] record.”

Salem Radio? Salem Radio is hardly part of a Vast Left and Right Wing Conspiracy. Sadly, many Christian leaders have actually jumped aboard the Trump bandwagon, seemingly willing to abandon both biblical and conservative principles for the elevation of someone they regard as a protector of their rights and freedoms. However, Trump is merely a bloviating bully[20] with disdain for the Constitution and he would govern with his own version of Obama’s pen and a phone.[21]

Every Major GOP Donor? GOP donors were hardly united against Trump. Many funded attacks against Cruz, Trump’s biggest rival.

Immigration? Immigration – Trump’s (and Coulter’s) signature issue – regularly places around fourth in exit polling, demonstrating that Coulter is wrong about the reason for Trump’s success thus far. Voters are outraged, want change, and are looking for a strongman to forcefully reverse the course our government is presently on.

Ironically, Coulter’s zealous devotion to Trump is itself predicated on a lie. Coulter insists that Trump is the best candidate on her core issue – immigration – yet, Trump has proven himself a fraud on immigration.[22] Trump admits he is flexible on immigration and he actually promotes amnesty (“touchback deportation”). To ensure a Trump victory, Coulter has repeatedly[23] lied[24] about Ted Cruz,[25] the one candidate who has a proven record of defending the border and preserving our national sovereignty.

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Coulter’s Dream Ticket: Trump-Romney” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cB.

[2]               See “Ann Coulter’s Upside Down World” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cP.

[3]               See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.

[4]               See “Coulter Attacks Christians for Being Godly” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-az.

[5]               See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[6]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[9]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[10]             See “Ann Coulter’s ‘Real’ Americans Fallacy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9Y.

[11]             Ann Coulter, 3/12/16, 12:16 a.m.

[12]             Ann Coulter, 3/15/16, 7:55 p.m.

[13]             See “Ann Coulter’s Xenophobic Anti-Gospel of Hate” at http://t.co/aQGhLuWwtD.

[14]             See “Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-4j.

[15]             See “Are Coulter’s ‘Facts’ Right?” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9E.

[16]             See “Ignorant Ideologue” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-br.

[17]             Ann Coulter, 3/15/16, 5:50 p.m.

[18]             Sean Hannity, Hannity, FNC, 1/26/16.

[19]             Ann Coulter, “When ‘reform’ means tilting the balance of influence,” 10/20/99.

[20]             See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bY.

[21]             See “Bully Boy Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cv.

[22]             See “Trump’s Phony Wall” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cn.

[23]             See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[24]             See “Coulter’s Desperate Lies About Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c8.

[25]             See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

Bully Boy Trump!

The bully, Donald Trump, proved himself just a bloviating boy. In the end, bullies usually do.

David French related two key moments in the Houston debate.

First, The Donald insisted that Rubio “Be quiet. Just be quiet.” Why? Trump fears the truth, especially about himself.

As French put it, “An alpha male commands respect; a bully tries to rule by fear. But when no one is actually afraid, the bully looks foolish. When the bully demands silence but instead receives a sarcastic retort, he reveals that that his ‘strength’ was a mirage.”

George Will puts it this way: “Like all bullies, Trump is a coward, and like all those who feel the need to boast about being strong and tough, he is neither.”

Second, The Donald insisted that Cruz apologize. Why? Trump wants the truth, especially about himself, to go away. Trump wants to suppress the truth! Intimidation is his primary tactic to achieve that end.

French noted, “Once again, the bully made his demand, this time for an apology. Cruz refused to comply, and went on to make exactly the right point: that Trump would be the Democrats’ best ‘Republican’ friend.”

Rubio correctly characterized Trump as a “con artist,” a truth many have heralded since before Trump launched his presidential campaign. Cruz astutely noted that Trump cares nothing for the Constitution and would be a Barack Obama in whiteface.

As I and others have pointed out before, Trump is a braggart and a bully who holds neither conservative principles nor a Christian ethos. Jonah Goldberg argues, “His cheap macho posturing and boasting is simply tacky.”

Trump is, as Andrew McCarthy describes, “a fraud – a liberal Democrat posing as the Republican savior.” Transfixed by Trump, some people still “blindly worship” him as their “Savior”!

McCarthy outlines, on issue after issue, the fraudulent nature of Trump’s politics, persona, and character.

It is important to stress Trump’s own purported self-image, concocted for the moment, to garner votes. After the Houston debate, he claimed, “I’m a strong Christian.” On another occasion, he claimed, “nobody reads the Bible more than me.” Goldberg noted, “Either Donald Trump believes what he said, or he doesn’t. If he does believe this, he’s sufficiently delusional to disqualify himself for public office. If he doesn’t believe this, he thinks his conservative Christian supporters are morons.”

Trump also alleges, “I’m very conservative,” adding, “I’m the most conservative person in the world” on a host of issues. Even New York Magazine called him out on that one.

But Trump is following in the footsteps of his consigliere, Ann Coulter, who regards herself as both an exemplary conservative and extraordinary Christian. Coulter boasts, “I’m like the conservative ayatollah” and “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian.”

As an example of her good judgment and proof of her conservative and Christian credentials, Coulter said that she would actually marry Trump if he were available. Maybe they should (after his fourth divorce). They are made for each other.

[NOTE: This essay was originally posted on BrotherWatch at http://wp.me/p4scHf-df.]

 

Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud

Ann Coulter admits that Donald Trump is a FRAUD!

In yesterday’s column, Coulter wrote, “That’s why it doesn’t matter when Trump pops off and says things that are not conservative orthodoxy – or even true!”

Her very next sentence begins, “Even if you think Trump is a libertine, shallow narcissist …”

So, according to Coulter, Trump is not a conservative, says things that are not “even true” and may well be “a libertine, shallow narcissist.”

(Strikingly, Coulter does not care that Trump’s claims are not “even true,” yet she blindly believes in his empty promises. Devoid of truth herself, Coulter believes what she wants to believe!)

As National Review observes, “Donald Trump is a habitual liar, and the thing about habitual liars is that they lie habitually.” Those selfsame words could easily apply to Coulter, who shares various[1] Trumpian traits of rhetoric and style, narcissism and hubris.[2] Hence, she is smitten with her mirror image (and falling prey to her very own tricks).[3]

Nevertheless, Coulter considers Trump her – and America’s – Savior![4]

Yet another Coulter-backed RINO, a Trump nomination for the GOP or a third-party run would spell doom for Conservatism and America as we once knew it.[5] Coulter knows this and wants this.[6]

Why? It furthers her ambitions to recreate a WASP America.[7]

More importantly, Trump fulfills her fantasy of being the Harriet Beecher Stowe of the New Trump Party.[8]

Trump’s claim to fame is being anti-Establishment. Trump is not anti-Establishment. Trump IS the Establishment. Trump epitomizes corporate cronyism and vulture capitalism.

Trump is about as anti-Establishment as Communist China was anti-Communist during its internecine power struggle with the Soviet Union.

This election has never been a battle between Trump and the Establishment, but rather, it is a power struggle within and among the elites. (Ted Cruz is the real anti-Establishment warrior in this contest!)

Endnotes:

[1]              See “Coulter Trumped Up” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7Q.

[2]              See “Coulter – An Elite’s Elite” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-aW. See also Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]             See “Ann Coulter – Smartest Person in the World” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-59. See also Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, 2014, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

[4]              See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[5]              See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[6]              See “Coulter Wants to Destroy GOP” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bn.

[7]              See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s WASP Fantasy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7H.

[8]              See “Coulter’s Know-Nothing American Party” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bP.

Coulter Crazy Over Trump

Unusually delusional even for herself,[1] propagandist Ann Coulter claims that Donald Trump won in Iowa![2]

Though Coulter acknowledges that year’s GOP presidential contest is now a three-man race, she claims it is between “Trump, Trump, and Trump.”

Nevertheless, Coulter ruthlessly attacks Rubio for his “high heels” and “big ears,” and calls him a “sweaty little liar.” (So much for taking the high ground.)

Acting as The Donald’s pit-bull, Coulter rejects Cruz’s historic victory as inconsequential and repeats her repeatedly-disproven birther lie[3] in order to derail Cruz’s momentum. Coulter has a long history of lying about the law[4] and fabricating “facts.”[5]

Trump and Coulter, bullies united in a cause.[6] Remember, Coulter has “blind worship”[7] for Trump!

It’s no wonder why Coulter has become irrelevant.[8]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3z.

[2]               See “Trump’s Path to Defeat” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-c2.

[3]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[4]               See “Coulter Lies About Supreme Court Case” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bE.

[5]               See “Ignorant Ideologue” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-br.

[6]               See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bY.

[7]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[8]               See “Ann Coulter’s Growing Irrelevancy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8Y.

Trump’s Path to Defeat

Ted Cruz[1] trounced Donald “I Am A Winner” Trump in Iowa last night. Even Marco Rubio almost routed Trump. The Donald’s inevitability and invincibility proved to be ephemeral narratives. (Donald and Hillary are oh so similar!)[2]

It is easy to see Trump’s path to defeat: Iowa – loss to Cruz (and, almost, Rubio); New Hampshire – loss to Rubio (or, perhaps, Cruz); South Carolina – loss to Cruz.(or, perhaps, Rubio); Nevada – loss to Cruz (or, perhaps, Rubio).

What kind of bounces will Cruz and Rubio get from their yuuge victories over Trump in Iowa? (Rubio had a massive expectations victory over the vainglorious Trump.)

How will Trump’s ego-bursting defeat in Iowa change his campaign and message? He will necessarily attack Rubio to court the moderate vote in New Hampshire. (But Cruz still poses a distinct threat to his ascendancy to the throne, er, presidency. A strong showing by Cruz in the “Live Free or Die” State will strike fear in Trump’s heart.)

Trump’s unfamiliarity with Christian beliefs and practices will augur ill in South Carolina.

Even Nevada can become problematic for the “I Am A Winner” candidate if his inevitable victories turn into disastrous defeats.

Will Trump still try to bully his way into the Oval Office?[3] (Can a leopard change its spots?)

We can expect Trump to push the bogus birther hoax[4] whenever he feels threatened by Cruz.

Will Trump supplement his own “hope and change”[5] message with specific policy positions? Can he, at this late stage, prove his conservative credentials?[6] Appealing to patriotism is not enough.[7] An understanding of America’s history, our Constitution, our Christian heritage,[8] and the world around us is essential. These Trump lacks.

Trump is only the latest billionaire trying to buy himself into the White House, but the American people are far too smart for him.

[NOTE: This essay was originally posted on BrotherWatch at http://wp.me/p4scHf-d1.]

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

[2]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[3]               See “How to Talk to a Bully (if you must)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-cY.

[4]               See “Birther Coulter Births More Lies” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bI.

[5]               See “’Hope & Change,’ and Other Orwellian Clichés” at http://t.co/v6fgItffhm.

[6]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

[7]               See “Reclaiming America!” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-9V.

[8]               See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.